AECOM Management Services, Inc.

B-417659,B-417659.2 Sep 16, 2019 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights AECOM Management Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland, protests the Department of the Army's award of a contract to DynCorp International, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-16-R-0006 for aviation field maintenance support services. AECOM challenges various aspects of the agency's source selection process, including the agency's evaluation under the technical and past performance evaluation factors. We deny the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of:  AECOM Management Services, Inc. File:  B-417659; B-417659.2 Date:  September 16, 2019 Richard B. O’Keeffe, Jr., Esq., William A. Roberts, III, Esq., Gary S. Ward, Esq., and Sarah B. Hansen, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, for the protester. Scott F. Lane, Esq., Katherine S. Nucci, Esq., Christine R. Couvillon, Esq., Timothy Sullivan, Esq., Edward W. Gray, Jr., Esq., and Jayna M. Rust, Esq., Thompson Coburn LLP, for DynCorp International, LLC, the intervenor. Wade L. Brown, Esq., Kelly Sledgister-Stehle, Esq., and Matthew A. McNease, Esq., Department of the Army, for the agency. Glenn G. Wolcott, Esq., April Y. Shields, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST 1.  Agency’s evaluation of protester’s and awardee’s proposals under the technical evaluation factor was reasonable, including the agency’s assessment of strengths in awardee’s proposal that ultimately were relied on as discriminators in the source selection decision. 2.  Agency’s evaluation of protester’s and awardee’s proposals under the past performance evaluation was reasonable, including the agency’s determination that awardee’s prior performance was more relevant to this procurement than the protester’s prior performance. 3.  Protest challenging agency’s best-value tradeoff determination is denied where agency documented multiple discriminators justifying the awardee’s higher price and where the underlying evaluation was reasonable. DECISION AECOM Management Services, Inc., of Germantown, Maryland,[1] protests the Department of the Army’s award of a contract to DynCorp International, LLC, of McLean, Virginia, pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. W58RGZ-16-R-0006 for aviation field maintenance support services.  AECOM challenges various aspects of the agency’s source selection process, including the agency’s evaluation under the technical and past performance evaluation factors. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND On April 30, 2018, the agency issued the RFP, seeking proposals to provide aviation field and sustainment level maintenance services for the geographic region known as Aviation Field Maintenance (AFM) II East.[2]  AR, Contracting Officer’s Statement/ Memorandum of Law (COS/MOL), July 10, 2019, at 1-2; AR, Tab 2a, RFP (conformed).[3]  Among other things, the contractor’s responsibilities will include aviation reset (i.e., restoring aircraft to a fully mission-capable condition), non-standard repairs with maintenance engineering approval, installation and removal of modification work orders, combat aviation brigade pass-back maintenance support, port operations, pre-mobilization and mobilization, unit support, crash and battle damage, and downed aircraft recovery.  COS/MOL at 1-2; AR, Tab 2b, RFP Performance Work Statement (PWS), at 6.  The RFP contemplated award of a single contract for a 1‑year base period and seven 1‑year option periods, with an independent government cost estimate of $2.8 billion.  RFP at 2; AR, Tab 6, Final Evaluation Briefing/Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Report, at 9. The RFP provided for award on a best-value tradeoff basis, considering the following evaluation factors, listed in descending order of importance:  (1) technical, (2) past performance, (3) cost/price, and (4) small business participation.[4]  AR, Tab 2h, RFP § M, at 1.  The RFP further provided that the three non-cost/price factors, combined, were significantly more important than cost/price, and cautioned offerors that award would not necessarily be made to the lowest-priced offeror.  Id. Under the technical factor, the RFP required offerors to submit a comprehensive management plan addressing eight areas, which would be evaluated for completeness, feasibility of approach, and risk.[5]  AR, Tab 2f, RFP § L, at 6-8; Tab 2h, RFP § M at 2‑4.  The RFP also required offerors to apply their comprehensive management plan to three scenarios,[6] and stated that the response to each scenario also would be evaluated for completeness, feasibility of approach, and risk, as well as consistency with the management plan.  RFP § L at 6-8; RFP § M at 3. Under the past performance factor, the RFP ...